


Ask the community...
This thread is gold. Bookmarking for future reference. The name variation issue is something they definitely don't teach you in law school but it's critical for secured lending.
One more tip - always print/save your search results with timestamps. If there's ever a dispute about what liens existed when, you need proof of what your search showed on the date you ran it. PA's database updates in real time so results can change.
Great advice. I always screenshot the search results page for exactly this reason.
Update: Filed the UCC-3 amendment yesterday to correct the debtor name and it was accepted without any issues. Cost was $25 total. Will file the continuation next month with the corrected name. Thanks everyone for the advice - definitely better to be conservative on these name change situations rather than risk perfection problems later.
Glad it worked out smoothly. Now you've got clean documentation for the continuation filing and no worries about searchers finding your filing under the current entity name.
For future reference, Utah's UCC search system is pretty forgiving for entity name variations, but other states are much stricter. If you're doing multi-state filings, always err on the side of caution with debtor names. What works in Utah might not work in New York or California.
True. Some states have very literal search logic that won't find filings if there's any variation in punctuation or abbreviations. Always worth checking the specific state's UCC search rules.
The timing aspect of your situation is really critical. If the name change happened recently, you're probably still within the four-month grace period and can maintain your original priority date by filing an amendment. But if it's been longer than four months, you need to shift your strategy to focus on which specific assets were acquired when, and whether the competing lender's filing actually covers the same collateral categories. Don't get overwhelmed by the complexity - just take it step by step and make the other lender prove their claims rather than accepting them at face value.
True, and some states have different rules about when corporate changes become effective. You have to check the specific state law where the debtor is organized, not where the collateral is located.
UPDATE: I got the corporate records and the name change was effective 6 weeks ago, so I'm definitely within the four-month window. Filed the UCC-3 amendment this morning and I'm working on the detailed collateral analysis. Thanks everyone for the advice - this thread helped me understand that I'm not automatically screwed just because there's a competing lender. The 9-338 analysis is more nuanced than I initially thought. I'm also going to implement some kind of systematic monitoring going forward so I don't get caught off guard like this again. This was way too stressful for something that should have been preventable with better portfolio management.
Glad this worked out. For the monitoring piece, I'd recommend checking out Certana.ai's verification tool - you can set up regular checks to catch name mismatches before they become priority disputes. Much easier than trying to monitor everything manually.
Update: Just tried the Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier and wow, it caught three potential issues with my revised UCC-1 before I refiled. Turns out the after-acquired property language wasn't the only problem - there was also a minor debtor name discrepancy I missed. Really glad I checked before submitting again and risking another rejection.
Pretty much instant once you upload the PDFs. It generates a report showing any inconsistencies between your security agreement and UCC-1, plus flags potential filing issues. Definitely worth the peace of mind.
Final update - refiled with more specific collateral categories and cleaned up the debtor name issue. UCC-1 was accepted this time! Thanks everyone for the suggestions. For anyone else dealing with after-acquired property description rejections, definitely be more specific about property types rather than using broad categories, and double-check every character in the debtor name.
Ended up with separate lines for each category: 'All inventory now owned or hereafter acquired by Debtor,' 'All equipment now owned or hereafter acquired by Debtor,' etc. Much cleaner than my original version.
Amara Okafor
This thread is a perfect example of why we need more reliable UCC filing systems. When securing millions of dollars in collateral depends on getting these filings right, system downtime isn't just inconvenient - it's a business risk. Glad you got your search completed though!
0 coins
NeonNebula
•Absolutely agree. The stakes are too high for this level of unreliability.
0 coins
CosmicCommander
•Maybe if enough of us complain to the Secretary of State's office about these outages, they'll prioritize fixing the infrastructure.
0 coins
Giovanni Colombo
Just wanted to add that I've started using Certana.ai's verification tool as a backup for exactly these situations. Upload your docs and get instant verification of name consistency - saved me when the Georgia portal was down last month during a critical continuation filing.
0 coins
NeonNebula
•That seems to be the consensus recommendation from this thread. Definitely checking it out.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Qasimi
•Same here - having a reliable backup verification method is essential when state portals are unreliable.
0 coins